Father of Oregon killer blames GUNS, not son, for massacre?

[KGB]

So? Why should we give up any of our rights? You are fear mongering. Your chances of getting shot in this country (unless you are a criminal or involved with criminals) is pretty much nil, so stop being dishonest.

we have 33,000 gun deaths and 78,000 gun injuries a year. It's hardly "nil".

I should also point out that your chance of being killed by a terrorist is pretty much "nil". Only 14 Americans were killed by Terrorists last year. We still spend hundreds of billions of dollars fighting "Terrorism".

I don't buy gun ownership is a "right" because a bunch of Slave Rapists who shit in chamberpots 200 years ago couldn't word a militia amendment properly.

It doesn't matter what you believe, the Constitution & the Supreme Court say its a right....an individual right at that. Don't like it, go through the Amendment process. It's settled law.

 

[ChrisL]

So? Why should we give up any of our rights? You are fear mongering. Your chances of getting shot in this country (unless you are a criminal or involved with criminals) is pretty much nil, so stop being dishonest.

we have 33,000 gun deaths and 78,000 gun injuries a year. It's hardly "nil".

I should also point out that your chance of being killed by a terrorist is pretty much "nil". Only 14 Americans were killed by Terrorists last year. We still spend hundreds of billions of dollars fighting "Terrorism".

I don't buy gun ownership is a "right" because a bunch of Slave Rapists who shit in chamberpots 200 years ago couldn't word a militia amendment properly.

It doesn't matter what you believe, the Constitution & the Supreme Court say its a right....an individual right at that. Don't like it, go through the Amendment process. It's settled law.

Hopefully that would never ever succeed. I don't feel comfortable at all with the government ever "revoking" one of our rights.

 

[JoeB131]

Most of those are gang and criminal related, if they aren't suicides.

Wrong again. According to the FBI , only 1854 of the 16,000 homicides in 2011 were "Gang related". Not all of them were among the 11,000 homicides committed with guns.

Most gun deaths are people being killed by a gun someone brought into that household to make them "safer".

It does make you safer. I don't have a dick, so now what? Will it make my breasts larger?

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy. No, it doesn't make you safer.

 

[JoeB131]

It doesn't matter what you believe, the Constitution & the Supreme Court say its a right....an individual right at that. Don't like it, go through the Amendment process. It's settled law.

Uh, no, guy. We don't have to amend the constitution.

All we need if for that Fuckhead Scalia to take a dirt nap and get a justice that can read "A Well Regulated Militia" and realize "Hey! Adam Lanza is not Well-Regulated. "

But there are other steps the government can take. the first one would be to let gun companies know that those that irresponsibly market their weapons will be disqualified from ANY government contracts. Since 40% of gun and weapons sales are to government agencies, that's a major hit to the bad actors.

Criminally prosecute gun dealers who sell to straw buyers.

Allow the victims of gun violence to sue gun manufacturers and dealers.

 

[JoeB131]

Hopefully that would never ever succeed. I don't feel comfortable at all with the government ever "revoking" one of our rights.

But you'd have no problem with locking up the mentally ill without any proof they had done anything wrong.

 

[ChrisL]

Most of those are gang and criminal related, if they aren't suicides.

Wrong again. According to the FBI , only 1854 of the 16,000 homicides in 2011 were "Gang related". Not all of them were among the 11,000 homicides committed with guns.

Most gun deaths are people being killed by a gun someone brought into that household to make them "safer".

It does make you safer. I don't have a dick, so now what? Will it make my breasts larger?

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy. No, it doesn't make you safer.

For your first paragraph:

America Doesn't Have a Gun Problem, It Has a Gang Problem

"A breakdown of the Chicago killing fields shows that 83% of those murdered in Chicago last year had criminal records. In Philly, it’s 75%. In Milwaukee it’s 77% percent. In New Orleans, it’s 64%. In Baltimore, it’s 91%. Many were felons who had served time. And as many as 80% of the homicides were gang related."
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


So, you minimize the effects of gang violence, but then you turn around and talk about being 43 times more likely to kill a household member. Well, what are the statistics on THAT?

According to the CDC's 10 million dollar Obama study, more times guns are used in self defense than in crimes.

 

[ChrisL]

It doesn't matter what you believe, the Constitution & the Supreme Court say its a right....an individual right at that. Don't like it, go through the Amendment process. It's settled law.

Uh, no, guy. We don't have to amend the constitution.

All we need if for that Fuckhead Scalia to take a dirt nap and get a justice that can read "A Well Regulated Militia" and realize "Hey! Adam Lanza is not Well-Regulated. "

But there are other steps the government can take. the first one would be to let gun companies know that those that irresponsibly market their weapons will be disqualified from ANY government contracts. Since 40% of gun and weapons sales are to government agencies, that's a major hit to the bad actors.

Criminally prosecute gun dealers who sell to straw buyers.

Allow the victims of gun violence to sue gun manufacturers and dealers.

So . . . now you are trying to convince us that American citizens cannot be trusted with their rights. You are trying to convince that if I went out and bought a gun for my self defense, the chances are good that I would suddenly turn into a homicidal maniac and go on a shooting spree.

 

[ChrisL]

Hopefully that would never ever succeed. I don't feel comfortable at all with the government ever "revoking" one of our rights.

But you'd have no problem with locking up the mentally ill without any proof they had done anything wrong.

I never said that. Did you just pull that out of your arse?

 

[KGB]

It doesn't matter what you believe, the Constitution & the Supreme Court say its a right....an individual right at that. Don't like it, go through the Amendment process. It's settled law.

Uh, no, guy. We don't have to amend the constitution.

All we need if for that Fuckhead Scalia to take a dirt nap and get a justice that can read "A Well Regulated Militia" and realize "Hey! Adam Lanza is not Well-Regulated. "

But there are other steps the government can take. the first one would be to let gun companies know that those that irresponsibly market their weapons will be disqualified from ANY government contracts. Since 40% of gun and weapons sales are to government agencies, that's a major hit to the bad actors.

Criminally prosecute gun dealers who sell to straw buyers.

Allow the victims of gun violence to sue gun manufacturers and dealers.

Well, yeah guy you do have to amend the Constitution to take away the Second Amendment. That's how it works. Once it was declared an individual right, that defined it. That gave visibility to the proper meaning of the term "well regulated militia". Notice the Court said membership in a militia is not a requirement to exercise said right. Therefore, it is an individual right which the Court clearly said. Individual rights such as the 2nd Amendment are enumerated, meaning they pre-exist. They cannot be legislated away nor can they be curtailed by an activist court. So, you want to deny citizens an individual right, you have to Amend the Constitution. You keep harping on this clause when the Court clearly said it does not matter in the context of Constitutional law. That's called settled law.

Now, who determines what "irresponsibly marketed" means? And by what do you mean by that? The only place I ever see a gun ad is in a gun magazine. It's marketed exactly as is & what you would expect.

Criminally prosecute gun dealers who sell to straw buyers....this is already on the books, but rarely enforced. Sounds like it's an enforcement issue...big shock there....

'Straw man' gun laws already on books, rarely enforced

Criminal negligence against any manufacturer is only present when the product does not work as intended. Not when it is used illegally. This would be the same as suing car manufacturers when someone kills another person while they drove drunk.

We get it, you hate guns & you hate gun rights.

 

[2aguy]

Most of those are gang and criminal related, if they aren't suicides.

Wrong again. According to the FBI , only 1854 of the 16,000 homicides in 2011 were "Gang related". Not all of them were among the 11,000 homicides committed with guns.

Most gun deaths are people being killed by a gun someone brought into that household to make them "safer".

It does make you safer. I don't have a dick, so now what? Will it make my breasts larger?

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy. No, it doesn't make you safer.

Wrong….most gun deaths are crime and drug related……normal people aren't shooting other people over 70% of victims and shooters have past criminal records….

 

[2aguy]

Most of those are gang and criminal related, if they aren't suicides.

Wrong again. According to the FBI , only 1854 of the 16,000 homicides in 2011 were "Gang related". Not all of them were among the 11,000 homicides committed with guns.

Most gun deaths are people being killed by a gun someone brought into that household to make them "safer".

It does make you safer. I don't have a dick, so now what? Will it make my breasts larger?

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy. No, it doesn't make you safer.

Most murder victims in big cities have criminal record

A review of murder statistics across America shows that in many large cities, up to 90 percent of the victims have criminal records.
-------
The report concludes that “of the 2011 homicide victims, 77 percent (66) had a least one prior arrest and of the known 2011 homicide suspects 90 percent (74) had at least one prior arrest.”
----------


In early 2012, after pressure put on the police by murder victims’ families in New Orleans, the police department stopped revealing whether or not the murder victim had a prior record.

---------------

Though data is no longer published in Baltimore, USA Today reported in 2007 that 91 percent of the then-205 murder victims in the city between Jan. 1 and Aug. 31, 2007, had criminal records.

---------
A WND review of the Philadelphia Police Department Murder and Shooting Analysis for 2011 shows a similar pattern to that of other large cities in America – a majority of the murder victims have prior records.



--------
In Philadelphia in 2011, of 324 murders, 81 percent (263) of the victims had at least one prior arrest; 62 percent (164) had been arrested for a violent crime prior to their murder.

----------

In Newark, N.J., long considered one of America’s most dangerous cities, 85 percent of the 165 murder victims between 2009 and 2010 had serious arrest histories.

Anthony Braga, a professor with the Rutgers-Newark School of Criminal Justice, told the Newark Star-Ledger that 85 percent of 165 murder victims in Newark between 2009 and 2010 had been arrested at least once before they were killed.

Those victims, he said, had, on average, 10 prior arrests on their criminal records.

A WND review of the Chicago Police Department Murder Analysis reports from 2003 to 2011 provides a statistical breakdown of the demographics of both the victims and offenders in the 4,265 murders in Chicago over that time period.

Of the victims of murder in Chicago from 2003 to 2011, an average of 77 percent had a prior arrest history, with a high of 79 percent of the 436 murdered in Chicago in 2010 having arrest histories.



***************
*****************
Public Health Pot Shots

this article goes at kellerman extensively and his crap research.....and here is some work on who actually kills people...


These and other studies funded by the CDC focus on the presence or absence of guns, rather than the characteristics of the people who use them. Indeed, the CDC's Rosenberg claims in the journalEducational Horizons that murderers are "ourselves--ordinary citizens, professionals, even health care workers": people who kill only because a gun happens to be available.

Yet if there is one fact that has been incontestably established by homicide studies, it's that murderers are not ordinary gun owners but extreme aberrants whose life histories include drug abuse, serious accidents, felonies, and irrational violence. Unlike "ourselves," roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have significant criminal records, averaging an adult criminal career of six or more years with four major felonies.

Access to juvenile records would almost certainly show that the criminal careers of murderers stretch back into their adolescence. In Murder in America (1994), the criminologists Ronald W. Holmes and Stephen T. Holmes report that murderers generally "have histories of committing personal violence in childhood, against other children, siblings, and small animals." Murderers who don't have criminal records usually have histories of psychiatric treatment or domestic violence that did not lead to arrest.


Contrary to the impression fostered by Rosenberg and other opponents of gun ownership, the term "acquaintance homicide" does not mean killings that stem from ordinary family or neighborhood arguments.


Typical acquaintance homicides include: an abusive man eventually killing a woman he has repeatedly assaulted; a drug user killing a dealer (or vice versa) in a robbery attempt; and gang members, drug dealers, and other criminals killing each other for reasons of economic rivalry or personal pique.


According to a 1993 article in the Journal of Trauma, 80 percent of murders in Washington, D.C., are related to the drug trade, while "84% of [Philadelphia murder] victims in 1990 had antemortem drug use or criminal history."


A 1994 article in The New England Journal of Medicinereported that 71 percent of Los Angeles children and adolescents injured in drive-by shootings "were documented members of violent street gangs." And University of North Carolina-Charlotte criminal justice scholars Richard Lumb and Paul C. Friday report that 71 percent of adult gunshot wound victims in Charlotte have criminal records.



Gangs in Fort Meyers Florida...



NBC2 Investigates: Gangs in Southwest Florida



The City of Fort Myers has been plagued with violence and murder. NBC2 Investigator Dave Elias dug deeper and found that drugs, crime and gangs are the common elements between those killings.

Lee County Sheriff Mike Scott says the three go hand-in-hand and all appear to be playing a big role in the city's crime problem.

"They're punks. They're criminals. And in most cases – cowards," said Sheriff Scott.

He also explained that gang members live by a much different set of rules.

"We're at a more violent time right now than at any time I recall," said Sheriff Scott. "You're talking about an area that - per capita - is on par with Detroit Michigan, in terms of homicides."

There were 25 murders in Fort Myers alone last year. And Sheriff Scott says all of the killings have those three things in common – drugs, crime and gangs.

"In most every case this is criminal killing criminal. This is bad guy on bad guy," he said.



So no….normal people are not shooting people…..criminals and gang members are doing almost all of the shooting…nice try though...

 

[Esmeralda]

“I’m not trying to say that they’re to blame for what happened. But if Chris had not been able to get hold of 13 guns it wouldn’t have happened.”

What he is saying is true: if his son had not had access to guns, he could not have carried out a mass shooting. The truth of that statement cannot be denied.

 

[2aguy]

“I’m not trying to say that they’re to blame for what happened. But if Chris had not been able to get hold of 13 guns it wouldn’t have happened.”

What he is saying is true: if his son had not had access to guns, he could not have carried out a mass shooting. The truth of that statement cannot be denied.

Wrong…he would have used gasoline like they do when they commit mass murder in Australia…or swords like the guy did in Sweden……….he passed every gun control law we had…and he would have passed all of the future laws, universal gun background checks, ammo background checks…….

 

[KGB]

“I’m not trying to say that they’re to blame for what happened. But if Chris had not been able to get hold of 13 guns it wouldn’t have happened.”

What he is saying is true: if his son had not had access to guns, he could not have carried out a mass shooting. The truth of that statement cannot be denied.

it does not follow that law abiding citizens should be denied their rights just because of one lunatic....

 

[Esmeralda]

“I’m not trying to say that they’re to blame for what happened. But if Chris had not been able to get hold of 13 guns it wouldn’t have happened.”

What he is saying is true: if his son had not had access to guns, he could not have carried out a mass shooting. The truth of that statement cannot be denied.

it does not follow that law abiding citizens should be denied their rights just because of one lunatic....

Yeah, right, all those kids are just collateral damage to protect every idiot in America's right to own an automatic weapon and hundreds, if not thousands, of rounds of ammunition.

 

[Esmeralda]

“I’m not trying to say that they’re to blame for what happened. But if Chris had not been able to get hold of 13 guns it wouldn’t have happened.”

What he is saying is true: if his son had not had access to guns, he could not have carried out a mass shooting. The truth of that statement cannot be denied.

Wrong…he would have used gasoline like they do when they commit mass murder in Australia…or swords like the guy did in Sweden……….he passed every gun control law we had…and he would have passed all of the future laws, universal gun background checks, ammo background checks…….

I said he could not have carried out a mass shooting. You cannot deny the truth of that. Whether he would have carried out a mass killing: pure speculation on your part, and most probably not at all as likely. We make it far too easy in this country to carry out mass murder.

 

[KGB]

“I’m not trying to say that they’re to blame for what happened. But if Chris had not been able to get hold of 13 guns it wouldn’t have happened.”

What he is saying is true: if his son had not had access to guns, he could not have carried out a mass shooting. The truth of that statement cannot be denied.

it does not follow that law abiding citizens should be denied their rights just because of one lunatic....

Yeah, right, all those kids are just collateral damage to protect every idiot in America's right to own an automatic weapon and hundreds, if not thousands, of rounds of ammunition.

well, first off, you can't own an automatic weapon without a special permit, so at least know what you are talking about. Secondly, I have booze in my house, does that mean I am prone to turning into a raging alcoholic....something tells me no...this is the ridiculous, emotion-drive drivel your side brings up every time which solves nothing & shows your contempt for fellow Americans.

 

[KGB]

“I’m not trying to say that they’re to blame for what happened. But if Chris had not been able to get hold of 13 guns it wouldn’t have happened.”

What he is saying is true: if his son had not had access to guns, he could not have carried out a mass shooting. The truth of that statement cannot be denied.

Wrong…he would have used gasoline like they do when they commit mass murder in Australia…or swords like the guy did in Sweden……….he passed every gun control law we had…and he would have passed all of the future laws, universal gun background checks, ammo background checks…….

I said he could not have carried out a mass shooting. You cannot deny the truth of that. Whether he would have carried out a mass killing: pure speculation on your part, and most probably not at all as likely. We make it far too easy in this country to carry out mass murder.

the sin is on the criminal, not the object & certainly not the law abiding citizen....

 

[2aguy]

“I’m not trying to say that they’re to blame for what happened. But if Chris had not been able to get hold of 13 guns it wouldn’t have happened.”

What he is saying is true: if his son had not had access to guns, he could not have carried out a mass shooting. The truth of that statement cannot be denied.

it does not follow that law abiding citizens should be denied their rights just because of one lunatic....

Yeah, right, all those kids are just collateral damage to protect every idiot in America's right to own an automatic weapon and hundreds, if not thousands, of rounds of ammunition.

How many kids do you think are actually murdered with guns…vs…every other method……?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

Kids murdered by guns....

under 1: 12
age 1-4: 39

age 5-14: 142

total gun murder of children.....193



Kids murdered by other means...

under 1: 270
age 1-4: 298
age 5-14: 135



murder of children by other means.....703
Now, if even if you include gun accidents into the total.....

you are still wrong....

Accidental death by gun for children....

under 1: 3
age 1-4: 27
age 5-14: 39

Total accidental gun death for kids 2013....69
So genius...how does 193 + 69 = 262

how does 262 equal 3 child gun deaths a day for 365 days a year...

365 x 3 = 1,095

Again...stop reading that crap from the anti gunners...they are lying to you ....

 

[2aguy]

“I’m not trying to say that they’re to blame for what happened. But if Chris had not been able to get hold of 13 guns it wouldn’t have happened.”

What he is saying is true: if his son had not had access to guns, he could not have carried out a mass shooting. The truth of that statement cannot be denied.

Wrong…he would have used gasoline like they do when they commit mass murder in Australia…or swords like the guy did in Sweden……….he passed every gun control law we had…and he would have passed all of the future laws, universal gun background checks, ammo background checks…….

I said he could not have carried out a mass shooting. You cannot deny the truth of that. Whether he would have carried out a mass killing: pure speculation on your part, and most probably not at all as likely. We make it far too easy in this country to carry out mass murder.

Well…no…..mass murder on a much great scale has happened in Europe….12 million…in Russia 25 million, China 70 million……so no, we don't make mass murder easy…..government makes mass murder easy..which is why we have the 2nd Amendment…..